I always pick an all male party; just because if I wanted to hear a bunch of weird female voices yakking all the time I could just stay in my apartment :D

I think you are wrong there because of the female only stamina regenerating items. </font>[/QUOTE]yes, and if you have an all female party, then you can't use the Chieftain's Mace. (but you have have to mug Chief Gari to get it)

Personally, I'd like more differentiation, but then I miss the days of Wizardry 1 sitting in front of an Apple IIe for hours hoping to roll enough points for a Samurai. But I don't miss the same experience with Wiz Gold, because the interface was so clunky (mouse this mouse that). If they bring back randomness, maybe they could have a % chance of a stereotypically sexed character (e.g. 80% burly guys with STR bonus, 20% weakling with smaller INT bonus + maybe extra points)

Chieftain's Scepter is not my idea of a great mace, anyway.
But there IS that Cameo Locket!

Interesting point, sultan! Here's another thought:

I don't want a distinction between male and female! Why, you ask? Well, simply because I want to set up my party the way I like it without suffering disadvantages. E.g., I really NEED 2 casters, Marduk and Tiamat, which are male and female resp., but I don't want any of the two to be "worse" than the other, which would be the case if, like you suggest, males are stronger, but dumber than females. So in order to be able to apply the make the characters of my party have the sexes I want them to have, I really like that there's no difference, because otherwise I'd have to think about something like "I want the bishop to be male, but females are better suited for this class", and I don't want that! So,keep it the way it is, I like it [img]smile.gif[/img]

On the other hand, the same would apply to races as well, but I don't fell unhappy with certain races being better suited to a certain class than others, so I'm not really sure why the same kind of "individuallity" would bother me in the question of the sexes....

Cheers
Philipp

P.S.: Now that I read my post, I'm not sure if I am to write "sex" or "gender", so please read the one that suits, even if I used the wrong one (be gentle, I'm german [img]smile.gif[/img] )

Phillip (Pyrates): In English, sex refers to biology (as in XX or XY), gender to the cultural expectations based on sex. Both biology and cultural expectations/experience can affect physical and mental development. A biological female (sex) can have a male (gender) upbringing and vice versa (this is quite rare or course).

Regarding this thread more specifically, I noticed that so far, everyone has seemed to assume that the expectations we have of male and female humans should apply to the fantasy races as well. I guess there is no reason to assume that female fairies wouldn't be genetically and socially predisposed toward more physical prowess than their male counterparts, that female lizardmen would be less intelligent but faster than male lizardmen, etc. I agree with Pyrates that forcing a male/female difference in starting characteristics actually subtracts from the flexibility of the game (it would make me feel more compelled to pick the 'more appropriate' sex; I suppose that one could argue that personality could affect starting characteristics as well - then I again lose in the flexibility as I wouldn't want to be the intellectual Lizardwoman fighter and suffer a double hit against strength and vitality; I'm not saying I would pick an intellectual lizardwoman, it's just an example... [img]smile.gif[/img] . The great thing about being able to put characteristic points where you want them is that you can customize your characters to fit what you want in a character. The different races already provide a lot of options for base characteristics - and if you want your female characters to be weaker, just don't put as many points into strength, etc.